Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Apple has started filing a bunch of patents on mobile applications. That might not be so interesting in and of itself, but if you look closely at the figures in one of the patents, you can see that it's a copy of the third-party Where To? application, which has been on the App Store since at least 2008. There's also a side-by-side comparison which should make it clear that the diagram was copied directly from their app. Even though it's true that the figures are just illustrations of a possible UI and not a part of the claimed invention, it's hard to see how they didn't get some of their ideas from Where To? It might also be the case that Apple isn't looking through the App Store submissions in order to patent other people's ideas, but it's difficult to explain some of these patents if they're not. And with the other patents listed, it's hard to see how old ideas where 'on the internet' has been replaced with the phrase 'on a mobile device' can promote the progress of science and useful arts. This seems like a good time to use Peer to Patent."

So, kind of like Netscape/IE or practically every other app or feature that's ever been added to an OS.

Yes, just like that, except in a world where Netscape had to submit a copy of their browser to Microsoft for inspection prior to release, during which time MS stalled and started development of IE such that when Netscape finally hit the market IE was already developed and integrated into Windows.

Agreed. The crap apple pulls and gets away with these days is something on a scale that I've never seen before... of course, that goes for many corporations nowadays.

It really just seems to me that they're getting more and more bold in regards to flaunting both the law and their purchased law makers...(not just apple, a whole bunch of different companies). Maybe people will start waking up to it soon. Then again... maybe not.

Let me be the first to say... I do NOT welcome our new corporate overlords.

Also, don't forget Konfabulator [wikipedia.org]. Actually it seems they do this every couple releases for OSX... 10.2 had Sherlock (Watson), 10.4 had Dashboard (Konfabulator). I guess they really DO have lightweight and movable teams -- their copying folks now work on iOS!

Web stats are very unreliable. We know that Symbian, RIM and now Android are outselling the Iphone platform, but they show up less on web stats. They're not even included at all on your reference!

And well - I like Linux and don't mean any insult by this - but saying "Less popular than Linux" isn't exactly making a compelling argument for saying one should commercially develop for a platform. Whilst there is commercial development on Linux, it's far less than Windows or even "Mac" OS X.

Sorry to hijack the FP, but I wanted to direct everyone's attention to the response from FutureTap [futuretap.com], the makers of "Where To?"

Here are the relevant parts:

Now some folks argued we might have a deal in place with Apple. I can assure you: we don't. The story was equally surprising for us as for many others.

[...]

I'm not a lawyer. I can't really judge whether the inclusion of a 1:1 copy of our start screen in someone else's patent is legal. I just have to say, it doesn't feel right. (If you can recommend a good, affordable patent lawyer, please let us know.) The perspective of an endless legal battle, however, is not very intriguing for a small company like us that aims to throw all its power into improving existing and developing new apps. So we definitely hope there'll be an easy solution. Perhaps it's just a flaw in the filing that can be fixed easily. If someone from Apple Legal reads these lines, you're welcome to discuss.

In summary, this episode once more reinforces my personal aversion against software patents. In my opinion they discriminate against smaller developers who can't afford building a huge legal department to defend against such patent cases and to research existing patent mine fields.

What do you think about the case? Are we overreacting? Please let us know in the comments, we're glad to hear your thoughts.

I don't have an iPhone, and therefore I don't have first hand experience with "Where To?" However, I have read the claims of the Apple patent, and the description of the "Where To?" software, and there is no overlap. The Apple patent is explicitly about notifying a third party of your arrival at some destination after detecting that you have been traveling. "Where To?" doesn't seem to do anything like this. The screen illustration is simply used as an example for what kind of UI the relevant application might have. So with this it is clear that "Where To?" is not prior art to the Apple patent, and Apple didn't steal an idea from FutureTrap.

That leaves the question of whether Apple is guilty of copyright infringement by using an illustration showing a screenshot of an app from another company. This gets pretty technical, but my educated guess is: probably not. The "screenshot" has obviously been redrawn with different fonts and slightly different icons, so it is not a verbatim copy of the original.

That said, using the image without asking for explicit permission from FutureTrap was a pretty stupid move on Apple's part, if only for the negative PR they'll be getting over this.

That leaves the question of whether Apple is guilty of copyright infringement by using an illustration showing a screenshot of an app from another company. This gets pretty technical, but my educated guess is: probably not. The "screenshot" has obviously been redrawn with different fonts and slightly different icons, so it is not a verbatim copy of the original.

It's not technical. Just read the agreement that you signed when you put the app in the app store. See the part where it says Apple has rights to use images of your app for any purpose? There you go.

The patent has nothing to do with the application. Did anyone read the damn thing? Hell, did anyone read the submission which flat-out states that the illustration is just an example of a possible use of the technology?

It's amazing how easy it is to emotionally rile up Slashdot regardless of any facts. Just mention one of the following:

1.) Patents2.) GPL theft3.) MPAA/RIAA

Boom, 500 angry comments from people who didn't RTFA. How many ignorant people aren't going to read the update or the patent and subsequently go on thinking Apple is "mining app store submissions for patent ideas" because they saw it in a Slashdot headline?

I don't know whether the patent is on prior art from that particular app; arguably it actually may be. It certainly isn't "unrelated". And it is likely that the Apple engineers got their ideas by looking at that particular app and asking themselves "what can we patent that's kind of like an extension of this app?"

More importantly, if you actually read the patent, it's clear that the patent is (1) merely a computer embodiment of a manual process, (2) something lots of other apps have been doing already, and (3) devoid of new technical ideas.

And it is likely that the Apple engineers got their ideas by looking at that particular app and asking themselves "what can we patent that's kind of like an extension of this app?"

Or, perhaps an Apple engineer saw the App and saw the name and thought "Hey, does it do this? Ah, no, the app is completely different. But, hey, this is a pretty cool idea. Let's see... implement it like this and do that like so and... Hey, does anyone have an App that does that? No? Hmmmm... let's see." "What are you doing, #Engineer?" "Hey, boss, check this out. Does this seem like a workable idea?" "Yeah, it does. Perhaps we should take steps to protect it before someone else comes up with it."

How many ignorant people aren't going to read the update or the patent and subsequently go on thinking Apple is "mining app store submissions for patent ideas"

But they are. They're just doing it the way the patent-system encourages - looking at what someone else built and patenting a bunch of possible innovations to it, properly referencing the prior art. So it's not like they're patenting an app out from under the author, but they definitely are looking at what the apps do and patenting as much as they think they can of everything the apps don't already do.

They might have key features of a version-2 app already being patented though.

It's amazing how easy it is to emotionally rile up Slashdot regardless of any facts. Just mention one of the following: 1.) Patents

Well, patents are universally bad. "IP" laws are just another form of corporate welfare. The tremendous cost, in enforcement and as a burden to society, aren't paid at all by the patent-holder. Patents aren't granted, at all, on the assumption of accruing a benefit to society as was the idea, they're just a government-printed license to sue, with the benefit of the doubt no less.

So yeah, the headline was wrong but everyone was right to expect Apple(/someone) crushing independent developers with patent law. That's just what monopolies are. The only "news" is that it's just business as usual, not some new and interesting screw like it appeared to some.

Some small company does all the actual work.Builds in as much functionality as they can in reasonable time.Leave a few obvious but hard to implement ideas for version 2 .Create a useful app and submit it to the app store.

Then some lazy jerkoff with a legal department behind him spends 5 minutes playing "what would it be cool to have this also do" and before the small guys can release version 2 the bigger company patents most of the version 2 functions.

Now despite them doing nothing useful whatsoever you have to pay them for the privalige of releasing a better app.

gives a different impression depending on if they approve the app or not. I could see bigger issues if they say, denied an app and then patented the idea of the app. But once it's approved, it's publicly available and visible to millions of people, apple just has a few hours head start on it, so I don't see a problem at that point.

Someone that speaks Lawyer needs to read their big SDK eula and appstore license and see if it in any way waives rights or something when you submit an app.

Since there were like 5 articles linked perhaps being more explicit next time will help those of us who are less wizened than yourself.

FYI, "wizened" means "old" or "withered" or "shriveled". It is not in any way a synonym for "wisdom".

No offense intended, but if your idea was to convince people that they did not correctly understand the intended meaning of your post, incorrectly using a word that is easily referenced is not a good way to do so.

but if you look closely at the figures in one of the patents, you can see that it's a copy of the third-party Where To? application

Yes, and if you read those pesky words that are floating around all the pretty pictures, you'll realise that the patent is for a data aggregation service that applications like "Where To?" will be able to use.

Apple seems to be looking at common applications in the app store, and figuring out what infrastructure services might make them better. This isn't evil, it isn't even particularly sneaky - anyone with an itunes account can browse apps and patent the same sort of ideas.

Don't get me wrong - I still think Apple is evil - this just isn't an example of their evil behaviour.

You've missed my point.
The 'Where To?' app wouldn't infringe this patent if it was granted, apple is not patenting the operation of apps in the app store in the way the article reports.
This is a patent for a type of service that apps like the 'Where To?' app could use if they wanted to, and the image in question is just held up as an example of this.
This patent couldn't be used as a defensive patent for the 'Where To?' app like you sarcastically suggest, because it is patenting a different thing entirely

Apple seems to be looking at common applications in the app store, and figuring out what infrastructure services might make them better. This isn't evil, it isn't even particularly sneaky

I totally agree with that part, and it's a shame so many people are willing to jump on Apple without looking at details.

However, it seems wrong to use other people's work without permission, even (especially?) in a patent application I wonder, has anyone tried to contact one of these application owners and asked them if App

Here's a picture from TFA [unwiredview.com]. Bottom right corner shows Amsterdam. And if you happen to find yourself in Amsterdam in need of such an app (i.e., you're probably not local), you think ya might want to do something more than dine, lodge, shop, sight see or drink?

I mean, we all know that the iPhone is not the phone for porn [slashdot.org], but no "coffee shops" either? Geez Steve...far cry from your Reed college days, eh?

Peer-to-patent is only useful when the patent applicant is participating in the process. Most patent applicants are not interested in having the community bust their patent, and don't participate. And if the patent applicant does participate, we end up in a situation where the community folks work to make the patent stronger, which isn't necessarily a good thing either.

Read the god damned patent application itself. What they are trying to patent has nothing to do with that application.

Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.

> Slashdot should just stop accepting any patent-related stories until it gets an editor who can grasp the concept that you have to read the claims and specification to know what is covered, not just glance at the pretty pictures.

Did you actually read the Slashdot submission? You know, the one where they wrote: "Even though it's true that the figures are just illustrations of a possible UI and not a part of the claimed invention, [...]" (emphasis added)

Part of the document that every iPhone developer agrees to before their app ever gets on an iPhone basically states that Apple can use screenshots and videos of your apps, without your permission, and without ever notifying you.

The apps you see on billboards and in TV ads? Developers are rarely told about that before they air. Apps installed on the demo iPhones in Apple & ATT stores? Developers find out about those when someone sends them a picture of it. The dozens of of apps featured every week in

Part of the document that every iPhone developer agrees to before their app ever gets on an iPhone basically states that Apple can use screenshots and videos of your apps, without your permission, and without ever notifying you.

I thought there was something at least covering marketing specific use in there somewhere, but could not find even that. Basically the document states you own all the copyright to materials you use in an app and that's about it.

The apps you see on billboards and in TV ads? Developers are rarely told about that before they air.

To my knowledge they always know because Apple requests vector artwork (for bllboards) and a ton of custom work around production of a TV ad (I know someone who had an app in one).

The dozens of of apps featured every week in the nearly 100 different country specific AppStores? The only way you find out about that is after a spike in your daily sales numbers.

Even then many featured apps are asked for higher resolution artwork. But you're right that they can generally take special note or feature something on a whim.

That said, I'd be pretty pissed (and looking for a cheap patent lawyer) if one of my apps showed up in a patent filing, but I wouldn't be that surprised.

So would I, though I don't see any need to start with a patent lawyer, Too expensive and it's not really a patent issue.

I would actually start by asking Apple simply to credit the application in the document. Worth far more as potential advertising than any damages you could ever recover. But you'd probably want a lawyer to do the asking.

I'd say you're right on that, no-one would develop apps for a platform if you had to give away all your IP rights, particularly large firms with teams of lawyers that vigorously protect anything even resembling IP.

Part of running a business involves working with lawyers from time to time, or at least it does if you have a lick of sense. Who in their right mind signs any business contract without having a lawyer look it over? You need lawyers to look over contracts you hand out, in addition to contracts you have to sign to do business. The simple truth is that the U.S. is a very legally oriented place so you are taking a pretty big risk if you just go into anything without legal review.

Then there's also the issue of what constitutes public disclosure. Is publishing the app public disclosure? Or is the invention still protected because the source code or some internal algorithm isn't readily apparent to the end user?

Some Slashdot patent defenders claim that not only is publishing an application using the method not sufficient for public disclosure, but publishing the source isn't either. Only God and the presiding judge for the Eastern District of Texas know what WOULD count.

Then there's also the issue of what constitutes public disclosure. Is publishing the app public disclosure? Or is the invention still protected because the source code or some internal algorithm isn't readily apparent to the end user?

Some Slashdot patent defenders claim that not only is publishing an application using the method not sufficient for public disclosure, but publishing the source isn't either. Only God and the presiding judge for the Eastern District of Texas know what WOULD count.

It's a shame that the Patent Office doesn't have an equal-and-opposite counterpart office that has the sole purpose of seeking to invalidate every possible patent. Only the ones that survive would remain valid.

Then again, we need a government office that serves no purpose other than to try to find unConstitional or repeal every law on the books. If it succeeds for a particular law, then it should not have been on the books anyway.

Well for one thing, once it has been "applefied" it will be safe and warm and fuzzy, not scary like those crazy open source things or locked down in a corporate way like those evil microsoft things.. Taste the soylent green... mmmmmm.....

More accurately they were such a minor player the government trust types left Apple alone, until iPod and iPhone (before they could really react Android come along and made the problem mute). M$ of course did get in trouble no where near enough was done but it looks to be coming to an end anyhow (Android on phone => Android on smartbooks => Android on big screens).

As for stealing patent ideas, greedy pathetic employees hunting bonuses, stealing ideas from across the net and legal teams turning a bl

You see, this is about protecting the developer and protecting users. See, unlike Microsoft, Apple will patent these ideas so that the developer, who doesn't have the resources that the big benevolent Apple has, and therefore, prevent cheap, buggy, hard to use, crappy knock-offs. The Apple user benefits because they are assured of a quality software product - unlike Microsoft.

Okay: The app and the patent application have nothing in common. The app is for finding local points of interest. As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed). The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.

The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.

"Gaffe"? So they stole it accidental-like?

"Geez, boss, I don't know how that dern image from that app store travel app got into the NEW! IMPROVED! travel app that I just wrote and we patented. Maybe the guy who wrote the original travel app also has a time-travel app and went into the future and stole it off my hard drive and put it on his own app after also stealing my future travel app (patent applied for). We oughta sue his ass pronto, boss, because that time-traveling app writer from the past is trying to take our property which is rightly ours because we thought of it first in the future!!! And we better find out who at the App Store approved of a time-travel app in the first place. That guy needs to be fired because the memo clearly stated that the time-travel app is supposed to be in-house only!"

How many big corporations have pissed on so much good will in so short a time? It used to be you could never find anybody who could find anything bad to say about Apple. Even people who didn't use Apple products wished them well because what they were doing was good for personal computing, and they seemed pretty decent. Then the business with licensing Apple OS and then Jobs takes over again and now Apple is a big boy but a lot of people who care about personal computing (and are not fanboys) are starting to admit that Apple's starting to do more and more shitty things. The shit-factor of their behavior has gone up in a remarkably steep curve, and now even some fanboys are starting to say "I love their products, but their choice of strategic partners sucks" and then "Sometimes Apple does some shitty things but not as bad as "X" Corporation who does much shittier things" and then finally "What the fuck is going on at Apple"?

Even a very good looking girl can behave in such a shitty manner that you'd no longer consider banging her. It might be getting to that point here. Apple may be getting too skanky to fuck.

It used to be you could never find anybody who could find anything bad to say about Apple.

I guess you weren't around for the 1988-1994 "Look and Feel" suit initiated by Apple against Microsoft - with the potential of a clone directed against any project, open source or not, that looked too much like Apple's graphical interface. (Brace yourself NeWS, X. Don't bother trying, KDE, Gnome,...)

In retaliation the GCC compiler project (for starters) refused to release Macintosh versions. (An independent group of Mac users ported each new gcc release to Macs and handled Mac-related bug fixes, resulting in a several-month delay of feature enhancements and bug fixes for that platform.) Meanwhile, John Gilmore was passing out a lapel button with a really ugly worm coming out of an apple and eating a computer, with a slogan about how Apple should keep its crummy lawyers out of MY computer.

I don't think you understand the issue if you still think that Apple is stealing someone's idea. As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the image in question is just used to illustrate how this patented technology might looked like if used by an app to show points of interest at the destination. Instead of mocking up the screen, some guy at Apple though he would save time by using an existing app that sort of looked like what he needed to show. As GP said, definitely a gaffe, but not such

As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed).

"Offering services" is a nice euphamism for unsolicited advertising which is also called "spam". Personally, I miss the good old days when advertisers and anyone else who would minutely track your day-to-day whereabouts had no hope of receiving your active assistance. If I want a service specific t

Thanks! I'll give it a shot. Apple has been applying for software (and hardware) patents for the last 8-10 years or so that they have no intention of actually creating and bringing to market. All one needs to do to verify this is to take a look at some of their patent submissions, then be honest with yourself about what Apple sells, and the quality of product Apple sells. Getting it? Apple is seeking patents on things that they DON'T want brought to market. Once they have the patent, they are assured that i

So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.

Heh. That reminds me of a sig I saw long ago. "The difference between a fanboy and a hater is the fanboy read the article."

So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.

So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.

Contrast this to people such as yourself, who are pathologically incapable of admitting when Apple does something good.

If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "

If only you left this part out it'd be incredibly difficult to call your post a "troll"...

It isn't so much I have a sore spot, as I feel like people's motivations should be pointed out in a way that is self-reinforcing if valid. The person I was responding to didn't really care if Apple was lifting ideas or not, he was simply chortling with glee that there was something negative about Apple he could use as leverage to attack anyone who liked Apple products. So it was more Slashdot judo than anything.

It isn't so much I have a sore spot, as I feel like people's motivations should be pointed out in a way that is self-reinforcing if valid. The person I was responding to didn't really care if Apple was lifting ideas or not, he was simply chortling with glee that there was something negative about Apple he could use as leverage to attack anyone who liked Apple products. So it was more Slashdot judo than anything.

"Slashdot Judo" is an interesting and amusing term for it. Sometimes I'm rather direct and not

The logic behind a successful corporation is that the expected cost of a thing is less than the expected gain from doing it. If Apple has worked on Webkit or any other project, it's because its gains from community support or goodwill or positive PR outweigh what it has to pay its employees to do so. I wouldn't call that "morally good" or morally anything. I would call that amoral.

Given how intangible goodwill is to accountants, I can't think of it in those terms. To me if the absolute results is one that

When Apple does something you judge as morally "good", it is good for their customers only.

Why do you say that? Is Apple contributing back to Webkit good for Apple customers only? What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales? What about the competitive pressure on the other big industry players, particularly Microsoft - do you think Windows 7 would be what it is now if Apple had quietly died around 1998/1999?

I appreciate that, like any company, Apple does things that are good and bad, both for its own customers and for the IT world in general, but I think it's extremely biased and inaccurate to claim that they only do good things for their customers.

What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales?

That was just a dick measuring contest between Jobs and the RIAA. Jobs absolutely would not give up any control over Fairplay DRM - that left the RIAA members having to choose between their DRM luv and whatever restrictions Jobs felt like, or DRM emancipation and their emancipation from Jobs's monopoly control over online distribution. The RIAA choose the later.

Note that if Jobs really gave a damn about DRM he would be pushing to get it off of videos in the itunes store. Yet, because he is now the single

So you see, Apple users can easily admit when Apple is doing something wrong, and in fact even correct you about why it is wrong - because we are thinking more rationally about the real problem, and not just about how much we hate Apple and hey here's an awesome negative article on something Apple is doing.

The problem isn't 'admitting Apple did something wrong' it's that you are aligning yourself on a team, and dividing people up over something that doesn't matter. Sure you're an Apple user, but I'll bet you can use a PC too. Why turn it into an 'us against them' sort of thing? Use Mac when it's better, use Linux when it's better. For things they do equally well, it is a matter of opinion which one to use. If you have an argument when one might be better than another, tell us.

One was that he patents using diagrams were not about what the applications did. Do you dispute that for these specific instances?

The second was that it seems like what is essentially a screen grab from an app is a copyright violation on the part of Apple. Do you disagree? If so, why do you think it fair for Apple to use other people's applications in this context? Were it my app I'd be sending a C&D (and hoping it might torpedo the patent in the process).

A legal battle around a patent costs a lot of money, time and energy. A huge majority of developers cannot afford any of those 3 , let alone all of them. So even an invalid patent can be quite efficient in neutering a market.

Bureaucracy can't feel anger. Some paper pusher will be angry at FutureTap for forcing him to deny that patent, hurting his 'approved' quota. And then the other 99 out of 100 rip-offs that were submitted will get approved by someone down the all.

FutureTap can't sue either, because their business model involves selling apps for a product whose maker has Monopolistic control over the distributed apps. If they sue, Apple could just refuse to sell all of their apps for the duration of the lawsuit.

If the ideas are already in published applications, then the patents are junk.

FIG. 6 of the application exists in published apps, but the claims of the patent application aren't "I claim the design in FIG. 6". You have to go to the claims, and the claims don't have anything to do with the Where To? app.

It may be copyright infringement, and may have some problems if the app isn't disclosed to the USPTO, but it doesn't seem to anticipate the claims. Furthermore, it might not be copyright infringement if (as is likely) the app store contract gives Apple a non-exclusive license to use t

God help me, I'm barely 30 and I already remember the good old days of slashdot when there was actual discussion happening by people who actually looked at the source material of posted stories.

Never happened; you're just looking at it through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.

I will not go so far as to call "bullshit" because that is not justifiable here. What I will do is to remind you that popularity is one of the worst things that can happen to many good sites and to many good things, and that it has been the downfall of far better places than Slashdot. By that I mean not quite literally "popularity" in itself, but rather the "pop culture" mindset that goes along with that.

Sorry for calling them monkeys but, if you think about it, by ignoring hundred million Symbian handsets, about a billion J2ME handsets

I write iPhone applications for a living.

I mulled over doing so for many years with J2ME. But frankly, there was just about no path to doing so as an independent - there just was no money in it. And the development (which I did try off and on) was really hell between the different handsets and profiles.

I think if someone has good ideas and is industrious, you can make a decent living these days doing either iPhone or Android development. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred trillion of them if only ten people ever buy applications for them, or the work needed to put out an application will far exceed any return you might get.

That is, if they are looking at people's application submissions, figuring out their functionality, and submitting patent applications claiming they invented this (thing the app published on their store does).

Then the claim is false, deceptive, harms the person who actually did the work and developed the application, and benefits them.

Go look at the claim in the patent application - the figure (and the app the figure is based upon) are only related to the claim in that they're both iPhone apps and are both useful to travelers. That's it.

Cannot. It is forbidden for me (and most software engineers) to even look at software patents/software patent applications.
In the event that I were infringing on one, it could become willful infringement the moment I was found to have seen the patent in question.

Bullshiat. That's just a cowardly way to say "I'm going to publicly call people frauds in an intentional attempt to damage their reputation, and when called on it, I'm going to claim that I can't look at patents."

Anyways, we are not discussing just a patent application, but a report by the author of the Article of Apple allegedly copying designs from apps in the app store to patent claims.

Specifically... the diagram was copied directly from their app.

That bolded part is where you may be legally liable. The design is not in the claims, but here you are, making damaging statements about peoples' reputations in public, while admitting that you haven't even seen the claims that you're impugning.